The way her policy was reported this morning one gets the feeling that the priority is to direct priority spending towards people who are likely, if not helped out of their situation, to cost the state the most. People who, if somewhat neglected, won't cost us so much in the long term, are given lesser priority in social spending. So we will offer a person assistance if it will ultimately save us $246,000 rather than others who might cost us only $116,000.
The way the minister argues the case, it doesn't sound much better to me than the days when assistance would be given to the "deserving" poor rather than those who were just poor.
I know we have to impress the bean-counters, but let's focus on the magnitude of the need, not on what we can potentially save.